Genealogies and Challenges of Transcultural Studies

humanities Article Genealogies and Challenges of Transcultural Studies Bernd Fischer Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; Academic Editor: Albrecht Classen Received: 21 November 2016; Accepted: 15 February 2017; Published: 24 February 2017 Abstract: My introductory essay discusses some of transculturalism’s enduring conceptual challenges from the perspective of the history of German cultural and political theory. I am particularly interested in the discursive space between Immanuel Kant’s individualism and Johann Gottfried Herder’s and Moses Mendelssohn’s concepts of cultural identity. My hope is that such a discussion can enrich some of our current questions, such as: Have culture studies placed too much emphasis on difference, rather than on commonality? Can a renewed interest in the cosmopolitan individual surpass the privileged position of academic or upper-class internationalism? Can concepts of transculturality avoid the pitfalls of homogenizing politics or overstretched individualism? After mentioning a few challenges to current conceptions of transculturalism that may arise in the wake of recent developments in the natural sciences, I end my remarks with a brief example of a possible intersection of literary studies and science. The essay engages three topics: (a) the question of culture; (b) transcultural participation; and (c) transcultural empathy and the sciences. Keywords: political philosophy; transculturalism; empathy; Foucault; Kant; Herder; Mendelssohn 1. The Question of Culture: Kant, Mendelssohn, and Herder When Immanuel Kant presented in his Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment (1784) the notion of a self-enlightening public, he was notably battling the specific political constrictions of late 18th-century absolutism. Although his concerns about a functioning public sphere would soon be eclipsed by the muddy realities of radically different power politics—i.e., the distinctly unenlightening media campaigns for and against the French Revolution, followed by wickedly deceptive strategies within the pro- and anti-Napoleonic propaganda wars, and, of course, the censorship decrees after the Congress of Vienna—, the idealistic passion of Kant’s account has survived to this day. Michel Foucault proposes that the ongoing appeal of Kant’s brief essay can, in part, be explained by its curious status within Kant’s oeuvre. In Foucault’s reading, the essay is not embedded in a one-dimensional historical teleology; rather, it is concerned with finding ways out of the misery of enslaving immaturity at any stage of history and articulates the use of individual reasoning as a shift in attitude. By asking for a new arrangement of the relations between will, authority, and the use of reason, Kant is no longer content with the right to freedom of thoughts, but rather insists on the freedom of the public word. With this demand, the Enlightenment becomes a political problem for any authority. Foucault uses a Kantian term for this new attitude, “räsonnieren” (public reasoning), and contends that it holds a central position in Kant’s philosophical project in that it is ultimately responsible for his decision to take on the tremendous task of writing the three Critiques. If public reasoning is to serve as an ongoing critical commentary on all of society’s affairs, the need arises for an accurate account of its inner workings, its preconditions, and its limits. Foucault goes so far as to suggest that Kant’s introduction of the new attitude of public reasoning marks a starting point of modernity, which, in turn, should also be understood as a shift in attitude: “a mode of relating to contemporary reality, a voluntary choice made by certain people; in the end, a way of thinking and Humanities 2017, 6, 4; doi:10.3390/h6010004 www.mdpi.com/journal/humanities Humanities 2017, 6, 4 2 of 14 feeling; a way, too, of acting and behaving that at one and the same time marks a relation of belonging and presents itself as a task” [1]. This choice amounts to a new “philosophical ethos that could be described as a permanent critique of our historical era” [1]. This ethos is in part negatively defined as the rejection of all teleological master discourses—“of another society, of another way of thinking, another culture, another vision of the world,” which would only lead “to the return of the most dangerous traditions” [1].1 Rather, modernity’s attitude of public reasoning is to be historio-critical and experimental in the face of contemporary questions and problems. Foucault’s conceptions of archeology and genealogy have replaced Kant’s transcendentalism. This is not the place to debate how successful Foucault is in explaining his philosophical attitude from a Kantian tradition; important for my topic is, however, that he (perhaps even more so than Kant) is concerned with the primacy of critical philosophy, its methodology, potential, and limits. Foucault presents the program of historio-critical enlightenment as a guide for the individual philosopher. There is no room for culture; the one time its name appears, we find it in a list of things that we should not do, namely falling for master discourses of ‘a new way of thinking, a culture, a vision of the world’; for that would imply a ‘return to the most dangerous traditions’. Foucault’s interpretation of Kant’s use of reason stresses its most ambitious feature: its advocacy of permanent public critique without the ideological backing of an alternative vision of a new political power. (It is in this sense somewhat reminiscent of Mendelssohn’s approach, as we can hopefully see below.) How does culture fare in Kant’s essay? We may begin by looking at his specific explanation of the Enlightenment’s historical foil: What or who—in addition to the cowardice and laziness of individuals, who are equipped to use their powers of reason, but avoid employing it whenever it is convenient—, is responsible for mankind’s proclivity for submissive immaturity? The first two items Kant mentions are books that think for us and priests that display a conscience for us. They serve as examples of all those guardians (“Vormünder”) that are empowered to do the thinking and feeling for us. They coerce and exploit us with methods that Kant describes as follows: “Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided.” ([2], p. 35) 2 This “Gängelwagen” (as Kant calls it) constitutes a predominant tradition for the majority of the population. It describes its habitual culture, notwithstanding the observation that, depending on their geographical and historical circumstances, people have developed various cultural formations that entail different degrees of habitual immaturity. If K (...truncated)